Journal of Elementary Science Education, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Fall 2007), pp. 13-24.

2007 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, College of Education and Human

Services, Western Illinois University.

Science Pedagogy, Teacher

Attitudes, and Student Success
Miriam Munck, Eastern Oregon University

Abstract
Through a century-long process, there has been a resolute effort to shape science
teaching in elementary classrooms. A close look at science teaching and student learning
may provide a better understanding of what really happens in elementary classrooms.
This study examines relationships between science teaching pedagogy, teachers science
teaching attitudes, and student learning outcomes 15 Oregon fifth-grade teachers. The
resulting qualitative and quantitative data provides insights into the relationships
between teacher practices and attitudes and student success.

Introduction
Since the Sputnik days of the late 1950s, a multitude of research studies have
explored the need for changes in science education. During the past decades,
reports, white papers, and studies repeatedly established American school
childrens lack of scientific understanding. In response, The National Research
Council (1996) published National Science Education Standards (NSES) with the
vision of a scientifically literate society with an understanding of significant science
content and the ability to apply that knowledge to understanding happenings in
everyday life. The NSES describe essential science content students need to know
and the value of cooperation and collaboration in science. According to the NSES
guidelines, the process of learning science concepts should involve a significant
portion of time working with other students in science inquiry: experimenting,
collecting and interpreting data, and discussing outcomes (Hurd, 2000; NRC, 1996;
NSTA, 1991; Rutherford & Ahlgren, 1989).
The standards are clear about the value of inquiry pedagogy in teaching
science, but teachers decide what actually happens in classrooms (AAAS, 1995).
The attention of educational reform is now focused on quality teaching as much
as on curriculum to improve education in areas in which quality science teaching
is linked to both content knowledge and pedagogy proficiency. An increasing
body of research strongly links low student test scores to poor teaching, some to
the extreme that the single most influential factor, next to parental involvement,
in student success is the teacher (de Souza-Barros & Elia, 1997). Implementing a
standards-based science curriculum is difficult for many elementary teachers and
is reflected in the amount of time teachers devote to science instruction. This is
shown in a survey of kindergarten through fifth grade teachers conducted by Fulp
(2002) in which teachers reported spending only 25 minutes each day in science
instruction, compared to 114 minutes in reading and language arts, 53 minutes in
math, and 23 minutes in social studies. Other studies find that the ability and desire
to teach as the NSES suggest is related to several intrinsic factors including teacher

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 13

attitudes regarding science and science instruction, limited content knowledge
(which is related to desire to learn science), and pedagogical experience (Abell &
Roth, 1992; Hewson, Kerby, & Cook, 1995; McDevitt, Heikkinen, Alcorn, Ambrosio,
& Gardner, 1993).
The aim of the study is to analyze the relationships between elementary science
teachers pedagogical practices and attitudes and the success of their students in
learning science.

Background
Student learning is affected by multiple factors. In the realm that schools control,
teachers and instruction are the major influence on what, how, and how much
students learn. Two important teacher factors, pedagogy and attitude, influence
much of what happens in science instruction and the resulting student learning
(Shrigley, 1983; Tobin, Tippins, & Gallard, 1994).

The Value of Inquiry Pedagogy and Student Learning in Science

Understanding the fundamental nature of science is embedded in inquiry-based
learning, providing a better grasp of the concepts and processes of science. Inquiry
in the elementary classroom combines a variety of skills and science processes.
Students ask questions; make observations; plan and conduct experiments; gather
and analyze data; use critical thinking; develop explanations, conclusions, and
predictions; and communicate their findings to others (NRC, 1996).
The value of inquiry learning strategies has been noted in increased science
achievement and cognitive development for students (Koballa, 1986; Krajcik,
Marx, Blumenfeld, Soloway, & Fishman, 2000; Shymanski, Kyle, & Alport, 1983).
A study comparing the effects of gender to inquiry-based teaching in the fourth
grade found girls and boys both improved in science achievement when taught
using inquiry (Dalton, Rawson, Tivnan, & Morocco, 1993). This is especially
interesting when considering the lack of student learning in science described
by the Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS reports
that in the 2003 tests, United States fourth graders were outperformed in science
by fourth grade students from 8 of the 24 participating countries. United States
eighth grade science students were outperformed by 32 of the 45 participating
countries (National Center for Education Statistics, 2004). National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) data establishes that American science students are
not making progress towards catching up with science students in other countries,
as NAEP science scores for fourth and eighth grade students show no improvement
from 1996 to 2000 (National Center for Education Statistics, 2002).
Critically, how well students gain a conceptual understanding of science is
related to how their teachers teach science (Kennedy, 1998). To be effective, science
teachers need to possess the ability to represent important ideas and abstract
concepts in a way that makes them understandable to students. The ability to
make this connection is the root of effective teaching; effective teachers possess
content knowledge and the pedagogy skills most effective to teach the subject
matter (Dewey, 1939) and in student learning.
Scientific inquiry has a definite role in student success, but is there assurance
that teachers are able to effectively implement inquiry learning pedagogy in their
classroom?

14 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)

 Research finds that inquiry-based instruction requires teacher skill beyond the
usual pedagogy. Teachers need to have an understanding of inquiry in order to
effectively teach inquiry. Most teachers have not had opportunities to learn science
in this manner or to conduct science inquiries themselves (Johnson, 2004).

Science Teaching Attitudes and Student Learning

The lack of skill and knowledge in science teaching is related to teachers attitudes
about science teaching (Shrigley, 1983). The word attitude describes outward and
observable actions relating to beliefs. Attitudes are rooted in experience and
affect what an individual will see, hear, think, and do. The outcome of attitudes
is the tendency to react favorably or unfavorably to situations, persons, or events.
Accordingly, teacher actions are shaped by their attitudes. Numerous studies
agree on the positive correlation between science teaching attitudes and the ability
to be an effective science teacher. Factors affecting teaching attitudes are found
to include confidence about subject content, willingness to utilize curricular and
pedagogical innovations, and a commitment to student learning (de Souza-Barros
& Elia, 1997). Westerback & Long (1990) explain that teachers who are comfortable
teaching science are more likely to devote more time to science teaching and
will teach with more creativity. Over the years, many studies have reported that
teachers who have positive attitudes about their teaching can have a significant
impact on their students achievement (Ashton, Webb, & Doda, 1983; Berman &
McLaughlin, 1977; Guskey, 1980; Lasserre, 1989).
In contrast to previous research, however, TIMSS found that teachers with
positive attitudes about the NSES, in actual practice, do not follow reform standards.
Teachers rely on textbooks that cover a wide range of topics, emphasizing simple
knowledge and routine procedures with little problem solving and critical thinking
required of students. TIMSS concludes that teachers attempt to do what is expected
of them but have insufficient time to teach the full range of content with the depth
needed to meet the NSES. They select the quickest and easiest way to teach, which
tends to be the pedagogy with which they are most familiar and use everyday
(National Center for Education Statistics, 2004).
There is a critical combination of qualities that enable teachers to succeed in
standards-based teaching. This study examines relationships between science
teaching attitudes and science teaching pedagogy of fifth grade teachers and the
science learning outcomes of their students. Prior research has not addressed this
combination of teacher variables and student success. Specific research questions
include the following:

Is there a relationship between science teaching attitudes and science teaching

pedagogy?
Is there a relationship between pedagogy and student learning?
Is there a relationship between science teaching attitudes and student
learning?

Methodology
The practices and beliefs of elementary science teachers and their relationship to
the success of students are complex. Instructional pedagogy utilized in classrooms,
a survey of teacher attitudes, student test data in science content knowledge, and
inquiry work samples are examined in an effort to gain an understanding of this

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 15

complex interaction. This study was designed to utilize a variety of instruments,
primarily focusing on quantitative measures. A pedagogy analysis instrument
that focused on inquiry was employed, and teacher attitude was measured using
a quantitative survey. Standards-based assessments already required for fifth
grade students were selected for student inquiry and content knowledge data.
Qualitative teacher data and anecdotal information were also collected.

Instruments and Data Collection

The Shrigley-Johnson Science Attitude Scale for Elementary Teachers (SAS), a
self-reporting instrument, is used to measure science teaching attitudes. The SAS
questionnaire consists of 25 questions about science interests and science teaching.
Using a Likert scale, respondents select one answer for each statement: strongly
agree (5), agree (4), not sure (3), disagree (2), or strongly disagree (1). Positive
statements are scored with five points for strongly agree statements, four points
for agree, and so forth. In scoring negative responses, the weights are reversed
with strongly agree (1), agree (2), etc. The total SAS score can vary from a low of 25,
the most negative attitude, to a high of 125, the most positive attitude. A test-retest
method reports the SAS to have a reliability coefficient of .92 (Shrigley & Johnson,
1974). The SAS was used by Damnianovic (1999) to evaluate the differences
in attitudes of preservice and inservice teachers toward science learning and
teaching in both traditional and inquiry-based settings. Damnianovic concluded
that the SAS is a reliable instrument that can be used to assess teachers attitudes
about standards-based teaching practices in general and inquiry instruction in
particular.
The Science Teacher Inquiry Rubric (STIR) (Beerer & Bodzin, 2004b) is used
to quantify observations of inquiry-based science teaching. The STIR scores five
features of science teaching pedagogy on a continuum of student-centered to
teacher-centered. The not observed rubric cell is scored as zero while the adjacent
cell is assigned a one, continuing to the last cell, the most student-centered cell,
which is assigned a four. The highest possible score on the rubric is 24, and the
lowest is 0, which indicates no observed evidence of inquiry-based practices. STIR
reliability is reported as strong with r=1 (Beerer & Bodzin, 2004a). To determine
a STIR score, each teacher was observed three times during a 12-week period.
STIR observations were unscheduled to provide as accurate a picture as possible
of normal teaching pedagogy and procedures. During the observations, the
researcher assumed the role of complete observer, only gathering data and
interacting casually and nondirectly with the students and teacher during the
observation. The STIR data for each teacher was reported as the total score of the
three lesson observations.
Content learning outcomes for students were collected from a standards-based
exam, the Oregon State Standards Benchmark II Test of Science Knowledge, given
during the fifth grade year. The Oregon science standards and assessments are
based on the NSES. The Oregon Science Assessment consists of multiple-choice
questions in the areas of earth science, life science, and physical science (Oregon
Department of Education, 2005). The scores were reported in Rasch units. Student
inquiry skills data was collected from a performance-based, rubric-scored, inquiry
work sample, which measures student ability to perform and communicate science
inquiry as identified by the National Science Education Standards. The inquiry
work samples four parts were each scored on a six-point rubric designed by Oregon
science teachers and the Oregon Department of Education. Scores ranged from a 6,

16 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)

exemplary, to a 1, no inquiry requirements utilized. To gather student inquiry data
for this study, a total score of the inquiry parts was determined for each student,
and a class total score mean was calculated. The validity of the science measures is
reported by the Oregon State Department of Education as 0.80 to 0.85, depending
on the compared measure; reliability is reported as 0.889 (Oregon Department of
Education, 2005).
A qualitative component, the Informational Questionnaire (IQ), asked teachers
about their science learning pedagogy, science teaching pedagogy, and the
importance of science in their curriculum. The IQ was expected to provide greater
depth and context to the quantitative data, creating a more complete overview
of teachers science teaching beliefs and practice through narrative responses to
open-ended questions. To develop the IQ, questions were selected from established
sources, such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (National
Center for Education Statistics, 2004) and Newmann and McNeil (1997) surveys
used to measure pedagogy and science attitudes. Questions focused on science
pedagogy and the importance of science and were modified to an open-ended
response format. To ensure quality, a draft of the instrument was developed and
piloted. The pilot included interview sessions to ensure that the teachers correctly
interpreted the questions. Pilot test data was used to determine item reliability,
reducing the IQ to eight questions. Before the IQ was given to the study sample
group, a final review was conducted to confirm that teachers had consistent
understanding of each question. Cronbachs alpha determined a 0.81 reliability
value. The IQ included questions such as the following:

Do you think science is important? Explain.

Describe how you present and teach science content.
What percent of your science class time is spent on activity-based learning?

To begin the data collection process, the research project was explained, and
the SAS and IQ were administered. Teaching observations took place over a
12-week period. Each teacher was observed teaching three science lessons, and
each lessons pedagogy was scored with the STIR. Some anecdotal data was also
recorded following each observation. School administrators provided student
content and inquiry assessment data.

Subjects
The sample consisted of 15 fifth grade teachers and their 439 students from a
spectrum of socioeconomic and ethnic groups in schools in northeastern Oregon.
Actual data on ethnicity and socioeconomics in each classroom was not collected,
but data from the Oregon Department of Education (2005) provided a comparison
of the study schools. As a reflection of socioeconomic and ethnic demographics of
participants in this study, Hispanic and Native American student populations in
several study schools were greater than the Oregon overall percentages, and the
percentage of free and reduced lunch students varied from a low of 26% to a high
of 73%, compared to the overall Oregon range of 10% to 86%. Two of the study
schools had over 70% free and reduced lunch students.

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 17

Results and Analysis
The data, displayed in Table 1, from each measure yields little overt
information.

Table 1. Data Summary

Student Inquiry Content Mean

Teacher SAS Total Scores STIR Total Mean Score (Rasch Units)

1 79 3 12.0 226.5
2 115 8 12.0 219.0
3 84 16 18.0 224.6
4 91 7 16.0 223.9
5 90 7 16.0 224.3
6 89 10 12.0 226.3
7 94 12 13.2 231.0
8 84 8 12.8 231.0
9 103 0 14.0 227.5
10 97 11 15.0 224.8
11 86 22 16.0 228.4
12 65 0 12.0 227.7
13 100 16 14.0 220.6
14 76 15 17.0 233.4
15 95 42 18.0 224.5

To investigate relationships, correlations are calculated between teacher

variables pedagogy (STIR) and science teaching attitudes (SAS) and the student
learning outcome meanscontent and inquiry. Table 2 summarizes the correlation
results.

Table 2. Teaching Pedagogy/Teacher Attitude Correlation Results (n=15)

Correlation Pearson Correlation Statistical Significance

Combination Coefficient P Value (2-tailed)

STIR Total SAS Total -.043 .880

STIR Total Content Mean - .080 .777
STIR Total Inquiry Mean + .648 .009*
SAS Total Content Mean - .623 .013*
SAS Total Inquiry Mean - .335 .222
* significant relationship

The correlations indicate that neither positive nor negative attitudes about
science teaching are related to the teaching pedagogy utilized by participant
teachers. The raw data indicates strong positive attitudes about science teaching but
few inquiry teaching practices. Further information, anecdotal and IQ responses,
shows major differences between what the teachers say they do and believe and
what the researcher observed them doing in the classroom. Of the 15 teachers, 14
describe their teaching pedagogy using words such as teacher facilitator, hands-on,

18 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)

experiments, inquiry, and high interest activitiesall inquiry-related descriptions.
STIR data indicates, however, that teaching pedagogy is very non-inquiry.
A second correlation result examines the relationship between pedagogy (STIR)
and student achievement, both content and inquiry. The correlation coefficient of
+0.648 between STIR and student inquiry indicates a moderate positive correlation
between teaching inquiry pedagogy and student inquiry outcomes and meets the
established criteria for significance (correlation coefficient 0.514 or greater shows
significance at the 0.05 level) with a corresponding p value of 0.009. The results
indicate that inquiry teaching pedagogy is related to student success in inquiry
learning; however, the correlation of inquiry teaching, STIR data, and student
content scores indicates neither a positive nor a negative relationship.
A teacher attitudes and student content knowledge correlation of -0.623 indicates
a moderate negative relationship between teacher attitudes about science teaching
and student content knowledge and meets the established criteria for statistical
significance with a resulting p value of 0.013. The negative correlation value
indicates an inverse relationship between science teaching attitudes and student
success on content knowledge exams. Teachers with lower SAS scores, meaning
more negative attitudes about science teaching, have students who did well on
content exams; conversely, teachers who have more positive attitudes about
science teaching have students who did poorly on science content exams.
A correlation coefficient value of -0.335 indicates a moderate inverse relationship
between SAS scores and student inquiry scores. Students who did well with
inquiry had teachers with low SAS scores or more negative attitudes about science
teaching; inversely, the students of teachers with positive attitudes about science
did poorly with inquiry.
Table 3 summarizes the results of STIR, SAS, and student inquiry multiple
regression results. The teacher variables (pedagogy and attitude) are considered
to be predictors of student outcomes.

Table 3. Independent Variables: STIR and SAS; Dependent Variable: Student

Inquiry Scores (n=15)

R R Squared Adjusted R Squared Std Error of the Est.

.659 .435 .340 1.787

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficients
Significant
B Std. Error Beta t (p value)

Constant 15.163 3.607 4.203 0.01

SAS Total 2.58E-02 .040 -.141 -.641 .533
STIR Total 0.142 .047 .665 3.031 .010**

(Dependent variable: student inquiry mean scores)

(**significant at the 0.05 level)

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 19

 The regression coefficient value 0.659 indicates a strong relationship among STIR,
SAS, and student inquiry, accounting for 43% of the variance in the relationship.
A further breakdown of the calculation reveals that the relationship between the
STIR and student inquiry is statistically significant with a p value of 0.010. The Beta
values indicate that the strength of the STIR, SAS, and student inquiry relationship
is due to the STIR and inquiry relationship.
Table 4 summarizes the results of the STIR, SAS, and student content knowledge
multiple regression. The teacher variables (pedagogy and attitude) are considered
to be predictors of student outcomes.

Table 4. Independent Variable: STIR and SAS; Dependent Variables: Student

Content Scores (n = 15)

R R Squared Adjusted R Std Error of the Est.

Squared

.623 .388 .286 3.18

Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficient Coefficients
Significant
B Std. Error Beta t (p value)

Constant 243.73 6.42 35.954 0.00

SAS Total 4.28E-03 .083 0.12 .052 .960
STIR Total -0.196 .072 -.624 -2.74 0.018**

(Dependent variable: student content scores)

(** significant at 0.05 level)

The regression coefficient value 0.623 indicates a strong relationship among

STIR, SAS, and student content scores, accounting for 39% of the variance in the
relationship. A further breakdown of the calculation reveals that the relationship
between the STIR and student inquiry is statistically significant with a p value of
0.018. The strength of the relationship among the STIR, SAS, and student content,
as indicated by the Beta values, is due to the STIR and content score relationship;
the SAS values influence the statistical relationship minimally.

Summary
A major finding is a negative relationship between science teaching attitudes
and student success on content knowledge assessments. Inquiry-based teaching
pedagogy relates to students success in performing science inquiry but not to
learning content knowledge. Teacher attitudes about science teaching show no
statistical relationship to science teaching pedagogy.

Discussion, Conclusions, and Recommendations

This study provides a unique look at the impact of teacher factors, attitude and
pedagogy, on student learning. The results suggest several important findings.

20 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)

 The analysis of the relationship between science teaching attitudes and science
teaching pedagogy addressed by the first research question determines that science
teaching attitudes are not related to the utilization of inquiry as a science teaching
pedagogy with no statistical correlation between the variables. An interesting
finding is the contrast between teacher reported pedagogy and observed pedagogy.
Study participants generally report mostly positive attitudes about science
teaching, and teachers use words such as teacher facilitator and hands-on science to
describe their science teaching strategies. Classroom observation data, however,
finds few teaching methods relating to these descriptors. The disconnection may
be attributed to a difference in the teachers understanding of hands-on and
inquiry teaching pedagogy from the accepted definitions and practices. Teachers
may view a teacher-directed activity or teacher-performed demonstration as being
inquiry teaching or a question-and-answer session as inquiry. Another possibility
is that teachers want to impress the researcher by using science inquiry jargon and
appearing to be good science teachers.
The second research question addresses the relationship between pedagogy
and student learning. A strong positive relationship between inquiry-based
science teaching pedagogy and student achievement in inquiry exists, but no
relationship, positive or negative, between inquiry-based science teaching
pedagogy and achievement in science content is evident. Teachers may not be
skillful in combining content learning effectively with inquiry pedagogy, or state-
mandated tests might affect how science is taught. To explain this, the effect that
forced student assessments may have on teaching practices should be considered
in further research. Classroom observation data shows few inquiry-based teachers,
but the student inquiry success of those who do use inquiry has a strong positive
correlation to the inquiry teaching pedagogy. Teachers who practice inquiry
teaching strategies can be expected to have students who are able to successfully
conduct science inquiry.
The last research question investigates the relationship between science teaching
attitudes and student learning. Contrary to other research, this study finds that
teachers science teaching attitudes are not statistically related to student academic
success in either content knowledge or inquiry process learning. Teacher science
attitudes vary from being somewhat positive to mostly positive; however, student
scores on state assessments are mediocre to poor. Teachers with positive attitudes
about science may have low achieving students, and conversely, some teachers
with negative attitudes about science may have students who are high achieving.
Two explanations for why positive science teaching attitudes do not predict high
student achievement, as found by this study, are as follows:

1. Teachers inaccurately present their actual beliefs and attitudes about science
teaching. Teachers may wish to present themselves as positive pro-science
teachers when they are not.
2. Teachers may have positive attitudes about science teaching, but they do not
have the pedagogical skills needed for inquiry-based instruction.

An additional explanation of the lack of student achievement, based on the

researchers casual observations, is that the science curriculum taught may not be
aligned with the NSES and the assessment instruments. Some teachers teach their
favorite units, even though the unit content is not supported by the NSES.
Science teaching qualities of elementary teachers can determine the success of
students in learning science, as suggested by numerous studies and acknowledged

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 21

by the NSES. Science teaching pedagogy and student success must be considered
because one of the main goals of science education improvement is to create
opportunities for students to learn science in the context of real-life, inquiry-based
experiences. Data reveals that students are not learning science content and are not
successful with inquiry. Teacher experience and skill with science inquiry may not
provide the expertise required to teach using inquiry. Teachers may believe they
are teaching science using inquiry pedagogy and meeting standards, but they are,
in actuality, extending the teacher-centered instructional methods. Further research
is needed to explore teacher misunderstanding of inquiry pedagogy, as well as
how teachers can gain the skills and confidence to teach science content through
inquiry pedagogy. The science curriculum utilized by elementary classroom
teachers is another area in which more information is needed.
Overall, the results of this study add to the literature addressing the impact of
teacher attitudes and pedagogy on student learning. Although the teacher traits
examined are limited, it is informative to find that teacher pedagogy and student
success with inquiry learning shows a strong relationship. It is also important to
note that teacher attitudes show no relationship to teaching pedagogy or student
learning success.

References
Abell, S. K., & Roth, M. (1992). Constraints to teaching elementary science: A case
study of a science enthusiast student teacher. Science Education, 76, 581-595.
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (1995). Blue prints
for reform: Project 2061. Washington, DC: Author.
Ashton, P., Webb, R., & Doda, C. (1983). A study of teachers sense of efficacy. (Final
report: Executive summary). Gainsville, FL: University of Florida. (ERIC Document
Reproductions Service No. ED 231 833).
Beerer, K. M., & Bodzin, A. (2004a, Fall). How to develop inquiring minds. Journal
of Staff Development, 25(4), 43-47.
Beerer, K., & Bodzin, A. (2004b, January). Inquiry-based science instruction: The
validation of the science teacher inquiry rubric (STIR). Paper presented at the 2004
Association for the Education of Teachers in Science (ATES) Annual Meeting,
Nashville, TN.
Berman, P., & McLaughlin, M. (1977). Federal programs supporting educational change,
Vol. VII Factors affecting implementation and continuation. Report No. R-158917-
HEW. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 140 432).
Dalton, B., Rawson, P., Tivnan, T., & Morocco, C. (1993). Equal opportunity learning:
Hands-on science for girls and boys. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service. No.
ED. 360191).
Damnianovic, A. (1999). Attitudes toward inquiry-based teaching: Differences
between preservice and in-service teachers. School Science and Mathematics,
99(2), 71-77.
de Souza-Barros, S., & Elia, M. F. (1997). Physics teachers attitudes: How do they
affect the reality of the classroom models for change? In A. Tiberghien, E. L.
Jossem, & J. Barojas (Eds.), Connecting research in physics education with teacher
education. International Commission on Physics Education. Available online at
www.physics.ohio-state.edu/~jossem/ICPE/TOC.html
Dewey, J. (1939). Democracy and education. New York: Free Press.

22 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)

Fulp, S. (2002). The status of elementary science teaching. National Survey of Science and
Mathematics Education. Chapel Hill, NC: Horizon Research, Inc. Available online
at research.com/reports/elem_science.php
Guskey, T. (1980). Teacher belief in their own control of factors influencing academic
achievement of students. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association, Boston, MA. (ERIC Document Reproduction
Service No. ED 187 766).
Hewson, P., Kerby, H., & Cook, P. (1995). Determining the conceptions of teaching
science held by experienced high school teachers. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 32(5), 503-520.
Hurd, P. (2000). Transforming middle school science education. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Johnson, K. (2004). The role of field paleontology on teachers attitudes
toward inquiry science. Novations Journal, 21. Available online at http://
novationsjournal.org/content/print.pl?sid=04/05/04/0024254
Kennedy, M. M. (1998). Education reform and subject matter knowledge. Journal of
Research in Science Teaching, 35(3), 249-263.
Koballa, T. R., Jr. (1986). Teaching hands-on science activities: Variables that
moderate attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Research in Science Teaching,
23(6), 493-502.
Krajcik, J., Marx, R., Blumenfeld, P., Soloway, E., & Fishman, B. (2000). Inquiry-based
science supported by technology: Achievement among urban middle school students.
Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan School of Education. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED 443676).
Lasserre, C. (1989). Relationships between selected school context variables and
teacher self-efficacy and self-confidence (Doctoral dissertation, University of
New Orleans, 1989). Dissertation Abstracts International, 51, 02A.
McDevitt, T. M., Heikkinen, H. W., Alcorn, J. K., Ambrosio, A. L., & Gardner, A. L.
(1993). Evaluation of the preparation of teachers in science and mathematics:
Assessment of preservice teachers attitudes and beliefs. Science Education, 77,
593-612.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). NAEP data. Retrieved March
10, 2005, from http://nces.ed.gov/nationasreportcard/science/results/
natscalescore.asp
National Center for Education Statistics. (2004). Highlights from the trends in
international mathematics and science study (TIMSS) 2003. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education.
National Research Council (NRC). (1996). National science education standards
(NSES). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
National Science Teachers Association (NSTA). (1991). Scope, sequence and
coordination project. Washington, DC: The Association Press.
Newmann, I., & McNeil, K. (1997). Conducting survey research in the social sciences.
Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
Oregon Department of Education. (2005). Teaching and learning to standards: Science.
Available online at www.ode.state.or.us
Rutherford, F. J., & Ahlgren, A. (1989). Science for all Americans. Washington, DC:
AAAS.
Shrigley, R. L. (1983). The attitude concept and science teaching. Science Education,
67, 425-442.
Shrigley, R. L., & Johnson, T. M. (1974). The attitudes of in-service teachers toward
science. School Science and Mathematics, 74, 437-446.

Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2) 23

Shymanski, J., Kyle, W., & Alport, J. (1983). The effects of new science curricula on
student performance. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 20, 387-404.
Tobin, K., Tippins, D. J., & Gallard, A. J. (1994). Research on instructional strategies
for science teaching. In D. L. Gabel (Ed.), Handbook of research on science teaching
and learning (pp. 45-93). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company.
Westerback, M. E., & Long, M. J. (1990). Science knowledge and the reduction of
anxiety about teaching earth science in exemplary teachers as measured by
the science teaching state-trait anxiety inventory. Journal of Research in Science
Teaching, 19, 603-616.

Correspondence regarding this article should be directed to:

Miriam Munck
Assistant Professor
Eastern Oregon University
1 University Boulevard
LaGrande, Oregon 97850
mmunck@eou.edu
Phone: (541) 278-5805

24 Journal of Elementary Science Education Fall 2007 19(2)